May 6, 1937. The L. Z. 129, also known as the Hindenburg, was docking in Lakehurst, N. J. As it slowed down, a crowd of spectators gazed at the 240-ton airship as it slowly attempted to dock. Suddenly, the shipís hydrogen ignited and the craft slowly fell from the sky. The crowd was speechless as the L.Z. 129 burned completely in less than a minute. Much controversy surrounds the causes of the disaster. Despite a lack of evidence, some point to sabotage. 1953 FHS grad Addison Bain has revolutionized the way history will view the demise of the L. Z. 129. The November edition of Popular Science published, Bainís alternate theory for the ìexplosion.î According to Bain the ìfabric envelope of the airship was not only very flammable, but so also so were many materials used in of the envelope.î The aircraftís envelope was coated with substances which protected and strengthened the blimp, but were also flammable, Bain said. The doping substance used to coat the blimp was coated in a mixture of substances that are still used in solid rocket aluminum powder which fuels the solid rocket boosters on space shuttles. ìI guess the moral of the story is not to paint your airship with rocket fuel,î said Bain. Bainís theory states that static electricity in the atmosphere ignited the envelope. Heat from the blaze melted two of the cells where the hydrogen was stored, adding to the fire and knocking off water tanks on the airship. Once the water ballasts had fallen, the shipís nose pointed upward. Hydrogen from the remaining tanks added to a fire fueled by fabric, coatings, wood, cords and even some silk in the passenger quarters. In other words, the ship didnít just blow up. It caught on fire because the envelope was sensitive to static electricity. ìI had to go to Germany, Lakehurst, and of course I was in Washington, D.C., a lot.î Bainís travels and work on his theory finally paid off, although Popular Science is not the only publication to acknowledge the theory. The New York Times, the ìMike Jamus Radio Program,î and the National Hydrogen and American Hydrogen associations have all conveyed Bainís message. ìI am very surprised at all the positive response,î said Bain of his research. Bain, a retired hydrogen expert from NASA, explained in a telephone interview that his new theory was more of a personal vendetta than anything else. ìIt had always bothered me that people always took the original data and theory for granted,î said Bain. ìThatís why I started to look deeper into (the Hindenburg disaster).î Bain said that although the idea hydrogen caused the disaster is engrained in the public mind, other options must be sought. Said Bain: ìEven if the airship used the nonflammable helium as planned, the disaster was destined to happen.î |
